...I think Reader1 might have a point. Sure, approaching someone with cat-calls or ogling is not really a good thing to do... But is it harassment?

Both the legal and the dictionary definitions require several interactions or insistence in one action. I think that the word harassment is being misused.

I also find the concept of harassed defines the harasser a bit ambiguous. It kinda implies that for harassment to exist the harassed has to be aware of it. If I've been following you home for 4 nights straight without you noticing, that's harassment._________________Welcome to Sinfest, the only place with a 46 pages long thread about sentient toasters

I think nitpicking over terminology is totally a worthwhile thing, and not at all what douchebags do.

This, though maybe I wouldn't have said it as such.

Can we all agree that bothering a person who isn't interested is at least a rude thing to do, if we can't agree on the word used to describe it?_________________Men and patriarchy aren't interchangeable.

I love it when people don't read the words that say the things that have the meaning.

Quote:

I also find the concept of harassed defines the harasser a bit ambiguous. It kinda implies that for harassment to exist the harassed has to be aware of it. If I've been following you home for 4 nights straight without you noticing, that's harassment.

Leohan, I covered that already.

Also: 1) language evolves, 2) language cops don't get to decide what someone is experiencing, 3) arguing over the terminology by holding onto the dictionary with an iron grip and without listening to what the other side is actually saying is the psuedo-intellectual version of, "la-la-la, I can't hear you!" and 3) if the culture itself is harassing by nature, if that harassment is experienced from every side, if the threat of it is ubiquitous, if it's not taken seriously and laughed off or brushed aside, and if it is harmful and dangerous enough to cause fear and/or to cause a certain class of people to significantly alter their daily choices and routines for the purpose of avoiding it and/or combating it, then I don't care if only one instance ever comes from one individual. It's still freaking harassment.

Oh, I don't argue that, Rune. Also, I am listening to everyone, just wondering about the appropriate terminology. As I said, we all can agree on which independent actions are wrong or right. The thing that has been getting complicated here was a concrete definition of the word... So yeah, lacking that I will go to the dictionary.

I'm not trying to trivialize anything. I'm not even arguing here. I'm trying to find meaning. You said that meanings change. Can you give me a meaning?_________________Welcome to Sinfest, the only place with a 46 pages long thread about sentient toasters

I've been writing a reply for you, but I later realized that you are probably uncomfortable with the topic already. So by Valerie philosophy it's maybe better to just drop it._________________Welcome to Sinfest, the only place with a 46 pages long thread about sentient toasters

I'm going to be a devil's advocate for Halloween. When I go trick or treating, I'll use my own definition of "take one, please" to mean "take the whole bowl." Because there is one bowl, and it is only polite to do something for someone when they said 'please.' (I bet they had to get rid of the bowl and candy, and just weren't able to make it to a thrift store.)_________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

UPDATE: After privately discussing it with Rune, yeah, turns out she already had given a good explanation of what harassment is in her opinion and I basically agree._________________Welcome to Sinfest, the only place with a 46 pages long thread about sentient toasters

Reader, I don't know why you want Rune to give you a full detailed account of her harassment. If all the stories of so many women online, on this forum and everywhere don't make you believe it, how can Rune?

Iím curious by nature. I try to temper that as much as I can because I understand that not only answering a question but being asked a question can cause people discomfort. If Rune did want to share her experiences I wouldnít expect a full detailed account, only what sheís willing to share with a stranger on the internet. No one should feel obligated to answer something they donít want to, but if I donít ask questions how will I learn?

Iím not trying to pry and I donít expect people to share just because It would benifit me. youíre right, there are plenty of examples, but they arenít connected to me. insight given from a person chosen at random, in a place with no affiliation to something that might bias it, in real time, from someone talking directly to you makes the information not only more believable but much more real as well.

The subject is big enough that I know about it even though I'm disconnected from it. I check up on world news from time to time and with every visit come stories from India where ďrape cultureĒ isnít just common, itís everywhere. Iíd be pretty dense not to believe it happens. What Iím trying to do is appreciate the feelings that accompany it, something thatís much harder to accomplish. understanding an experience and going through it are two very different things. I donít deal with street harassment on a daily basis, its not part of my life, and it doesnít effect me(not that I donít care). So I have to look to others for assistance.

Stripey wrote:

Why do you define harassment that way, and why do you expect others to accept your definition?

Before anything else, Iíd like to thank you for responding. you didnít just give a general description, you shared. Thank you for that, Iím grateful.

People tend to define a word based on two things, by how they see it used in context, and the dictionary. Harassment isnít a word that I come in contact with very often and when I do its probably in some tv show where they depict stalkers. On top of that when I go to a dictionary the definition tends to contain the idea that the actions are either prolonged or habitual. The stalker definition is the legal definition, and the dictionary definition is the textbook definition. I donít have much to go on for the ďlivingĒ definition, the one people use in everyday conversation.

And as for the other part of your questionÖ I donít. I posted my definition to be critiqued and to hear othersí opinions of it. sometimes itís hard to assert what you believe without it sounding like your telling others to conform. That was never my intention. Some people ask questions slowly and try to learn bit by bit, i tend to just put my ideology out there and let people have at it. sometimes it annoys people because my ideas may not be well thought out at that point, but I find it more efficient that way. I like to take in information from people who know what theyíre talking about and go from there instead of trying to get to their level on my own. I donít mind looking stupid so long as Iím learning, and I am.

Rune-

*sigh* when did we go from hypotheticals to assuming Iím a jerk who doesnít care about people?

I thought the ďyouíre whole comment was Ďsplainy.Ē part was rather blanket-ish... its right to expect people not to harm you, but do you *expect* them to be anything more than neutral to you? If you can make someone feel more comfortable by just inconveniencing yourself itís common decency to do so, but are you saying that not helping someone is wrong? I donít disagree within reason, but if so Iíd like to hear your ideas on the subject and at what point you draw the line.(i'm not talking about feminist ideals anymore, for me this conversation has shifted more towards nit-picky ethics/human rights)

Geareye-
Thanks for the input, howís this?

Valarie wrote:

If you realize that what you're doing is bothering someone, and you make a conscious decision not to do anything differently, then you are intentionally acting in a way that you know bothers that person.

True, but is that always wrong? (again, transitioning to nit-picky ethics)

.
.
.
.
.

now that Iíve gotten to everyone maybe I can ask another question? I feel like Iím closer to understanding things than I was before. As I read through the comments some of tats comics would come to mind and click in ways that they didnít before, the comic at the beginning of this thread was one of them. Slick puts her into a position that makes her feel uncomfortable and then gets indignant when she treats him as a possible threat because thatís not how he thinks of himself. I got all that before, but after trying to better understand things from a different perspective it added a new depth to the comic that wasnít there before. I actually viewed it like a social commentary instead of just a comic for the first time in quite a while.

question/request: Would someone mind explaining the end goal(s) of feminism?

If you realize that what you're doing is bothering someone, and you make a conscious decision not to do anything differently, then you are intentionally acting in a way that you know bothers that person.

True, but is that always wrong? (again, transitioning to nit-picky ethics)

I'm not sure that would ever be RIGHT. What the hell kind of question is that?_________________

mouse wrote:

almost a shame to waste dennis' talent on him.
except it's always a pleasure to see a good dennis insult.